In re M.C.
Filed 10/8/13 In re M.C. CA2/7
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
SEVEN
In re M.C., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B246321
(Los Angeles
County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARQUES S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct.
No. CK95850)
APPEAL from a judgment of
the Superior Court of
County, Anthony Trendacosta, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Marques S.
John F. Krattli, County Counsel,
James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
>
Marques S. appeals one
jurisdictional finding of the juvenile court concerning his son, M.C. We dismiss the appeal.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition alleging
that M.C. and his older half-sibling came within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code
(a) and (b). M.C.’s parents, Marques S.
and L.C., were alleged to have engaged in violent altercations in front of the
children, including incidents in which Marques S. struck L.C. and threatened to
kill her. This physical violence was the
subject of the section 300, subdivision (a) allegation and one subdivision (b)
allegation. Additionally, under section
300, subdivision (b), DCFS alleged that each of M.C.’s parents was incapable of
providing regular care for the children due to daily use of marijuana.
The juvenile court amended
and sustained the section 300, subdivision (b) allegations pertaining to
use. Marques S. appeals.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Marques S. contends that there is no
substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that his marijuana
use placed M.C. at risk of harm. Marques
S. does not challenge the finding that M.C. is subject to juvenile court
jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) as a result of the domestic
violence between his parents.
Marques S. acknowledges that M.C. will remain a
dependent of the court regardless of the outcome of this appeal and that the
law permits a reviewing court to decline to address allegations of insufficient
evidence to support a jurisdictional finding when jurisdiction will continue regardless
of that analysis other findings afford a basis for jurisdiction. (In re
I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1492.)
Marques S. argues, however, that the court should exercise its
discretion to reach the merits of his challenge to an individual jurisdictional
finding notwithstanding the fact that the juvenile court would nonetheless
maintain dependency jurisdiction over
M.C. because the allegedly erroneous finding could be prejudicial to him in the
future. (See, e.g., In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.) First, he argues, this finding could afford a
basis for orders that he “engage in drug counseling, therapy, or rehabilitation
efforts.†Regardless of the finding,
however, Marques S. could be ordered to participate in drug treatment and
counseling based on the evidence that was submitted to the juvenile court, as
the court is not limited to the content of the sustained petition when it
fashions dispositional orders. (
Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008; In re Rodger H.
(1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1174, 1183.)
Next, Marques S. argues that the finding could
“unnecessarily restrict father’s access to the child,†relying without
explanation on In re Joshua C. (1994)
24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1548.
proposition that jurisdictional findings may be reviewed even after the
termination of dependency jurisdiction when those findings are the basis of
custody and visitation orders that “continue to adversely affect appellantâ€
after termination. (Id. at p. 1548.)
Marques S. has not challenged any of the dispositional orders, nor has
he identified any orders resulting from the true finding he attempts to
challenge that adversely affect him.
Accordingly, In re Joshua C.
has no application here.
Finally, Marques S. alleges
that the jurisdictional finding could have a negative impact on his custody
rights “were he to face juvenile court involved with his family again, as to
this, or any potential future child.â€
General allegations that the findings could impact future court orders
are insufficient; the parent must identify specific legal or practical
consequences arising from the dependency findings. (In re
I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1493.) Marques S. has not
established any respect in which the jurisdictional finding he challenges
negatively affects his custodial rights in this matter, in light of the
unchallenged findings that afford a basis for jurisdiction and his admission of
daily drug use; and in any future dependency proceedings jurisdiction would be
assessed on the basis of the then-current circumstances. (Id.
at p. 1495.) Because Marques S. has
not established any actual or threatened prejudice from the jurisdictional
finding he seeks to challenge, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction to
review it. (Id. at pp. 1491-1495.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
ZELON,
J.
We
concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
WOODS, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
